Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[TiKusDom]

It's the same thing as when I rent my house out. The people renting it don't care what my mortgage is or how much I owe on the house. The rental market pricing for my kind of house is unaffected by that. If I try to charge them more because I have an expensive mortgage, they'll go rent the identical house down the street.

read above. The owner's investments of capital into the business increase the players' marketability and the players' own earning potential one way or another.

[Indeed]

The question is can Casino B give more money to its entertainers than Casino A? Assume that both casinos are instructed not to pay so much that they go into a loss.

They can always not to pay so much nor ensure they wisely spend their money, so that they go into a loss even without being instructed.

Not sure why you are arguing this point, there is no proof of player salaries are causing owners to lose money (again, read the conversation between Fairveiw, Sleepy and Boris).

Over half the owners are losing money due to player salaries. The proof is the cancelled games. That proves more than you saying there is no proof. By your logic there was no proof when the NHL lost a season either.

That is not true, perhaps you made that up, or you listened to the media (based only on the owners side) before the negotiation (yeah, give the owners credit for making these mis-leading marketing strategy). When players argued for 53%, they never said they are losing money, they just said it is not enough.

We should argue why it is not enough, but not they are losing, because there is no claim through out the negotiation (the owners never mentioned that part, they just said they want 50/50, deal or lockout).

[Sleepy51]

Yes. Any company offering stock optons, RSU's, etc, are basically trading on ownership. That is typically what is meant by profit sharing, which is the case you brought up.

No , you are misunderstanding. I am saying when is a company is sold to another company , I am not talking about stock options. Most companies are not even traded or have stock options. No profit sharing is not the same. Profit sharing can come from simply having more sales and agreeing to give a chunk of that to your employees. Stock options are only a small part of profit sharing plans.

Since when is any private company sold, (pretend its not public so you dont have to worry about stocks since that seems to confuse you ) obliged to provide its profits to its employees? It doesn't.

Oh boy . . . private companies can and do issue stock. They can also issue stock options. Both can be of limited liquidity or difficult to negotiate, but they most certainly can be offered to employees as a form of incentive compensation. It's very common form of incentive compensation for startups.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/15/technol ... /index.htm

[TiKusDom]

Yes. Any company offering stock optons, RSU's, etc, are basically trading on ownership. That is typically what is meant by profit sharing, which is the case you brought up.

No , you are misunderstanding. I am saying when is a company is sold to another company , I am not talking about stock options. Most companies are not even traded or have stock options. No profit sharing is not the same. Profit sharing can come from simply having more sales and agreeing to give a chunk of that to your employees. Stock options are only a small part of profit sharing plans.

Since when is any private company sold, (pretend its not public so you dont have to worry about stocks since that seems to confuse you ) obliged to provide its profits to its employees? It doesn't.

Oh boy . . . private companies can and do issue stock. They can also issue stock options. Both can be of limited liquidity or difficult to negotiate, but they most certainly can be offered to employees as a form of incentive compensation. It's very common form of incentive compensation for startups.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/15/technol ... /index.htm

oh yeah , and how many companies do this ? 1% . yeah there are boatloads of companies out offering shares that havent gone public or arent planning on it. We're talking about "most" and businesses "norms" not facebook or whatever ABC company out of a million you can dig up that does otherwise.

[TiKusDom]

The owners are not proposing to cut the players in on those future profits when they sell the team. They are taking the money, and not giving it back.

Is there any business in this world that offers to give its employees a share of the profits when a company in sold?

Yes, some CEO and executives are provided with stock options, and they gain when a company is being sold. Yes, they became the owner as their position is strongly influencing the revenue of the company.

Yes, but we arent talking about CEOS. We are talking about employees and the company workforce :S. You're comparing player workforce to CEOS of companies :S ?! sorry CEO is not the same as Joe Schmoe rank n file working 9-5.

[floppymoose]

It's the same thing as when I rent my house out. The people renting it don't care what my mortgage is or how much I owe on the house. The rental market pricing for my kind of house is unaffected by that. If I try to charge them more because I have an expensive mortgage, they'll go rent the identical house down the street.

read above. The owner's investments of capital into the business increase the players' marketability and the players' own earning potential one way or another.

Not enough to matter. It's a rip off. Asking players to give up hundreds of millions per year just in the hopes that the owners will spend that money in a way that helps player marketability? That's some serious trickle down economics....

All of these pro-owner arguments are contrived. None of them pass the smell test.

[TiKusDom]

Not enough to matter. It's a rip off. Asking players to give up hundreds of millions per year just in the hopes that the owners will spend that money in a way that helps player marketability? That's some serious trickle down economics....

All of these pro-owner arguments are contrived. None of them pass the smell test.

Hundreds of millions per year out of 2.3 billion? Seems like nothing considering the owners are the ones taking on all the risks. Player risks nothing signing a multi-million dollar contract. Owner takes all the risks of running a business. Sounds more like owners are the ones being ripped off even in a 50 / 50 split.

[floppymoose]

Seems like nothing.... ok, I'm done here. This has gotten obvious.

[Indeed]

Is there any business in this world that offers to give its employees a share of the profits when a company in sold?

Yes, some CEO and executives are provided with stock options, and they gain when a company is being sold. Yes, they became the owner as their position is strongly influencing the revenue of the company.

Yes, but we arent talking about CEOS. We are talking about employees and the company workforce :S. You're comparing player workforce to CEOS of companies :S ?! sorry CEO is not the same as Joe Schmoe rank n file working 9-5.

No, we are talking about those who influence greatly to the business, and when you looked at Cleveland, LeBron James has changed its value for -26%.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/bas ... _rank.html

Does he deserve the some share? Definitely if Steve Jobs deserves his on Apple.

[TiKusDom]

No, we are talking about those who influence greatly to the business, and when you looked at Cleveland, LeBron James has changed its value for -26%.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/bas ... _rank.html

Does he deserve the some share? Definitely if Steve Jobs deserves his on Apple.

And how many Lebron James international marketing superstars are there? I can count then on my hand. How many teams are there? 30. If every team had a Lebron James your argument might make sense.

[Indeed]

No , you are misunderstanding. I am saying when is a company is sold to another company , I am not talking about stock options. Most companies are not even traded or have stock options. No profit sharing is not the same. Profit sharing can come from simply having more sales and agreeing to give a chunk of that to your employees. Stock options are only a small part of profit sharing plans.

Since when is any private company sold, (pretend its not public so you dont have to worry about stocks since that seems to confuse you ) obliged to provide its profits to its employees? It doesn't.

Oh boy . . . private companies can and do issue stock. They can also issue stock options. Both can be of limited liquidity or difficult to negotiate, but they most certainly can be offered to employees as a form of incentive compensation. It's very common form of incentive compensation for startups.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/15/technol ... /index.htm

oh yeah , and how many companies do this ? 1% . yeah there are boatloads of companies out offering shares that havent gone public or arent planning on it. We're talking about "most" and businesses "norms" not facebook or whatever ABC company out of a million you can dig up that does otherwise.

Why is it 1%? Because only companies with certain values can provide these offers. Meanwhile, there is also revenue shares between an owner and the sales person. Look around on the Internet for CPA or affiliated programs, you are rewarded for 50% of the revenue when you introduced someone to purchase something on their site. This is why you see so many spams on your mail box.

[TiKusDom]

Why is it 1%? Because only companies with certain values can provide these offers. Meanwhile, there is also revenue shares between an owner and the sales person. Look around on the Internet for CPA or affiliated programs, you are rewarded for 50% of the revenue when you introduced someone to purchase something on their site. This is why you see so many spams on your mail box.

That has nothing to do with private companies offering shares or employees being paid upon the sale of a company :S. You're talking about commission which a completely different subject

[Indeed]

Why is it 1%? Because only companies with certain values can provide these offers. Meanwhile, there is also revenue shares between an owner and the sales person. Look around on the Internet for CPA or affiliated programs, you are rewarded for 50% of the revenue when you introduced someone to purchase something on their site. This is why you see so many spams on your mail box.

That has nothing to do with private companies offering shares.

Nothing to do with shares, but it has something to do with revenue sharing.
It is 50% revenue sharing by simply joining CPA or affiliated programs. Therefore, a player (act as a salesperson) should entitled their salary from RBI, right?

[TiKusDom]

Nothing to do with shares, but it has something to do with revenue sharing.
It is 50% revenue sharing by simply joining CPA or affiliated programs. Therefore, a player (act as a salesperson) should entitled their salary from RBI, right?

we were talking about how the revenues from a sale of a corporation do not require the owner to share these profits with his employees.... ? NBA already have a BRI revenue sharing in place, this isn't the topic of discussion. Other poster was arguing how capital investment by owner shouldn't matter because players dont see a dime from a team being sold.

[Indeed]

No, we are talking about those who influence greatly to the business, and when you looked at Cleveland, LeBron James has changed its value for -26%.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/bas ... _rank.html

Does he deserve the some share? Definitely if Steve Jobs deserves his on Apple.

And how many Lebron James international marketing superstars are there? I can count then on my hand. How many teams are there? 30. If every team had a Lebron James your argument might make sense.

It is 26% of the "value of the team", not revenue.
26% of ownership is far greater than 57% of RBI.

I think our original argument is between players deserve or not deserve to have their salary based on performance (sales performance, RBI), no? And you came out with ownership shares.

[TiKusDom]

It is 26% of the "value of the team", not revenue.
26% of ownership is far greater than 57% of RBI.

I think our original argument is between players deserve or not deserve to have their salary based on performance (sales performance, RBI), no? And you came out with ownership shares.

How many Lebron James type players are in the NBA? Again the argument is that capital investment should not be used to measure owner's losses because dividends of that investment are not paid to players upon sale. You're having a conversation with yourself :S

[Indeed]

Nothing to do with shares, but it has something to do with revenue sharing.
It is 50% revenue sharing by simply joining CPA or affiliated programs. Therefore, a player (act as a salesperson) should entitled their salary from RBI, right?

we were talking about how the revenues from a sale of a corporation do not require the owner to share these profits with his employees.... ? NBA already have a BRI revenue sharing in place, this isn't the topic of discussion. Other poster was arguing how capital investment by owner shouldn't matter because players dont see a dime from a team being sold.

Yes, because the original question is, should players take the loss of owners when they are loaning an arena. If the owners claim they are losing money because they need to finance the arena, then they should not lower the RBI due to owners claim they are in debt, because the players never get anything back (no benefits from selling the arena nor the team) for helping the owner to pay off their debts for their own benefit.

[TiKusDom]

Yes, because the original question is, should players take the loss of owners when they are loaning an arena. If the owners claim they are losing money because they need to finance the arena, then they should not lower the RBI due to owners claim they are in debt, because the players never get anything back (no benefits from selling the arena nor the team) for helping the owner to pay off their debts for their own benefit.

loaning ? you mean leasing? thats not the only grounds for owners wanting to lower BRI.....

[Indeed]

Yes, because the original question is, should players take the loss of owners when they are loaning an arena. If the owners claim they are losing money because they need to finance the arena, then they should not lower the RBI due to owners claim they are in debt, because the players never get anything back (no benefits from selling the arena nor the team) for helping the owner to pay off their debts for their own benefit.

loaning ? you mean leasing? thats not the only grounds for owners wanting to lower BRI.....

The owner did not specify they are from leasing nor the reason to go into debt. But at least many people believe it is not because of player salaries. No one admit nor denied those financial information, but as we can believe, players lowed to 54%, the argument of owner losing money was not being mentioned.

As we continue to discuss, I still don't think both sides are being honest and negotiating for the good of the game (one side for money, one side for guarantee contract length). So whatever, don't think neither side are right.

[TiKusDom]

The owner did not specify they are from leasing nor the reason to go into debt. But at least many people believe it is not because of player salaries. No one admit nor denied those financial information, but as we can believe, players lowed to 54%, the argument of owner losing money was not being mentioned.

As we continue to discuss, I still don't think both sides are being honest and negotiating for the good of the game (one side for money, one side for guarantee contract length). So whatever, don't think neither side are right.

My thought on this is that even though the players are providing a great sales product, the NBA is providing the name, established reputation and a network of revenue for the players to access. Without it, the Union doesn't have a reasonable means of income. The recession has hit America hard , and most of these teams are actually losing a lot of money. The players needs to agree on a 50 /50 or 51/49 split , because they would still be making millions in an economy where mufti billion dollar businesses have gone bankrupt overnight and the standard of living for most Americans has fallen down. It's not that unreasonable.